The World Affairs Board is the premier forum for the discussion of the pressing geopolitical issues of our time. Topics include military and defense developments, international terrorism, insurgency & COIN doctrine, international security and policing, weapons proliferation, and military technological development.

Our membership includes many from military, defense, academic, and government backgrounds with expert knowledge on a wide range of topics. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so why not register a World Affairs Board account and join our community today?

At any rate, rumours of Moqtada al-Sadr's political demise were exaggerated.

He was worsted in the armed confrontations in early '08, but he wisely de-escalated, and made a "strategic withdrawal."

If there was vote-rigging in the recent Iraqi parliamentary elections, it doesn't strike me as very likely that the Sadrists would have been the net beneficiaries, which means that the vote count, if anything, would tend to understate Moqtada's popularity.

Originally Posted by Reuters on Apr 9, 2010

NAJAF, Iraq, April 9 (Reuters) - Anti-U.S. cleric Moqtada al-Sadr, likely to be a key player in forming a new Iraqi government following elections last month, urged Sunni and Shi'ite Muslims on Friday to unite to oust American troops.
In an address read to tens of thousands of supporters at a rally to mark the seventh anniversary of the overthrow of Saddam Hussein, Sadr said that without Iraqi unity "the occupation and its advocates will stay in Iraq without fear".
"You, the Sunnis of Iraq, joined hands with the Shi'ites to liberate our country. Do not let the (U.S.) occupation or any unjust law made by it deter you from doing that," he said in the address read by aide Hazem al-Araji...

Sadr, a Shi'ite who is studying in Iran and is part of the Shi'ite Iraqi National Alliance (INA), is a major factor as politicians try to form a government after inconclusive elections last month.
As part of political negotiations, INA has held merger talks with the State of Law coalition of Shi'ite Prime Minister Nuri al-Maliki.
State of Law finished just two seats behind former Prime Minister Iyad Allawi's cross-sectarian Iraqiya list in the 325-seat parliament. Sadrists won around 40 seats, the best showing of any party in the INA.

Not a complete dictatorship but we can all agree Maliki has become increasingly authoritarian and I don't know if you've followed the news but he's dropped hints of a military coup if he isn't declared winner. Maliki's bloc lost, but he now claims Allawi commited fraud (the first time a government ever claims the opposition commited fraud against them) and is demanding a recount, the IHEC refused and then he released a statement that "as commander in chief" he cannot allow "fraudulent results" to be approved by the commision. He's also been pulling strings to try get 4 members of Allawi's bloc banned which would make his the biggest.

"...he managed to get more votes than any other prominent figure in Iraq which suggests enough about his popularity."

By my count he personally controls about 12% of the parliament. By your count he does so as the third most powerful coalition.

In Iraqi politics parties come together to form coalitions prior to the election, Sadr's coalition came third (because of the unexpected poor preformance of his allies), his party however is the largest party. Yes he controls 12% 40/325, but all other parties control less. If you want a top 10, here:

As it is both Allawi and Maliki want the NIA to join, al-Hakim and Adil Mahdi have accepted defeat, Sadr rules the NIA now, he can now make his demands for without him, no government.

Originally Posted by cape_royds

At any rate, rumours of Moqtada al-Sadr's political demise were exaggerated.

He was worsted in the armed confrontations in early '08, but he wisely de-escalated, and made a "strategic withdrawal."

If there was vote-rigging in the recent Iraqi parliamentary elections, it doesn't strike me as very likely that the Sadrists would have been the net beneficiaries, which means that the vote count, if anything, would tend to understate Moqtada's popularity.

He hasn't been accused of any fraud either. Jaafari and Allawi have accused Maliki and Maliki of fraud, Talabani and Nawshirwan (who has also accused Talabani of fraud) have accused Allawi of fraud.

My understanding is, he had gone over 14 months without even showing his face in public in Iraq. He appears to have spent a lot time in Iran working on his Ayatollah ‘diploma’ in that time.......

I am not after the showing allawai had vs. malicki espcially that sadr will be appreciated by the iraqi mainstream, whom realize they would indeed be better off with a secular multi faceted party.

I could be wrong, but I think hes trouble. He got run out of Basra and Allawai et al should remind him of that, I just don't see anything good coming of his appearance and instigation of the always present disaffected class.

The way they make teh 2008 fighting look now is much different from how it was back then. At the time Muqtada had won, Iraqi security forces sent for the crackdown were deserting and switching sides en masse, Mahdi Army was taking control of the whole city and than Maliki gave in to his demand (release of prisoners), which was the reason why the fighting started in the first place, after the Mahdi Army than withdrew Maliki suddenly turned it to make it look like a victory.

The real conflict at the time was also not between Maliki & the Americans Vs. Sadr, but of the Supreme Council (ISCI), led by al-Hakim and his Badr Brigades (very pro-Iranian, created in Iran, infact) Vs. Sadrists, led by Muqtada and his Mahdi Army. Iran therefore negotiated the cease-fire between their two allies, both of which are heavily infiltrated in security forces. America and Maliki were quick to claim credit for it but it wasn't actually their achievement.

Maliki from 2006 until mid-2007 was very much Sadr's man (it was Sadr who nominated him as candidate and ensured he became PM, while al-Hakim backed al-Mahdi), the shift came around 2007 with the Battle of Karbala and than the cease-fire, then he became al-Hakim's man. Abdel-Azziz al-Hakim then dictated policies until 2009 when Maliki's strong showing made him believe he was the biggest Shi'a so he went his own way. But he lost this election and now he needs them again to return to power.
Sadr is has now the biggest party, he's the strongest in negotations, both Maliki and Allawi want him (and particulary Allawi likes the Sadrists more than the ISCI, which is to pro-Kurdish) he can make his demands. Some prominent militia leaders were elected to parliament and Maliki has already started the release of thousands of Sadrists and they're talking about making Moqtada's cousin Jaafar al-Sadr (who is also close to Maliki) the new compromise PM.

The bottom line is current elections show that although Muqtada is not the best coalition builder (his allies won 30 seats, Maliki's allies won 67, Allawi's won 64), he is Iraq's most popular figure and the Sadr Movement is Iraq's most popular politican movement and what some tend to forget ist hat his father and grandfather are two of the most legendary Ayatollahs ever, known and respected all over the Shi'a community, that's why he has so much influence at such young age and with such low title and the Sadr's have brought forth many prominent Ayatollahs some of which are Muqtada's cousins and uncles. That and his ancestry can be traced straight to the prophet Mohammad (PBUH) and Imam Hossein, something which brings a lot of respect in the Muslim world and specially in Shi'a community.

*Maybe to his followers but to the rest it wont change what he already is.

First of all the number of followers he has seem to keep increasing. Sadr Movement's votes trippled from 2009-2010.

Secondly, who he is? He's the son of Mohammad Sadeq al-Sadr one of the most famous and most worshipped Ayatollahs of all time, not just that, the Sadr family's name is famous in the Shi'a world for this, Sadr's grandfather, his great grandfather (Mohamad Mahdi al-Sadr), his great-great grandfather (Ismail al-Sadr), his great-great-great grandfather (Sadraldin al-Sadr) were all prominent Grand Ayatollahs of their time. He's a cousin of Musa al-Sadr a national hero in Lebanon who was killed during the civil war. Muqtada's uncle was Mohammad Baqir al-Sadr who like his brother (Muqtada's father) was one of the big names of his time, both were murdered by Saddam. And he's a descendant of the prophet Muhammad (PBUH) and all the Twelve Imam's who created Shi'a Islam.

*I am very familiar with the title, yes it is a religious title and no there is no place for it among Iraq's government. The very best thing they can do is learn to seperate church/Mosque and state, that way there will not be a dictatorship such as Irans lunitic theocracy,

Al-Hakim wants the Velayet e-Faqih in Iraq, al-Sadr doesn't. But as it is, Ayatollahs wield significant power over all religious Shi'a politicians in Iraq so what about an Ayatollah with his own party, which just happens to be Iraq's biggest party?

*If he is in fact the most popular (which I truelly doubt) then why spirit off to Iran and preach hate against the west. Why not stay?

There are several reasons, the first and most obvious is that the Americans want to arrest him, the second is to study to become Ayatollah, many Iranian clerics go to Najaf in Iraq to study for Ayatollah (Khomeini and Khamenei have both studied there, Sistani, an Iranian, still lives there and is the most powerfull figure in Iraq), many Iraqi clerics go for religious studies in Qom, Iran. These two places are the main places for Shi'a clerics to get educated, Sadr has been to Najaf already, it was becoming time for him to come to Qom and not only a possible American arrest prompted him to do this, also Sadr was afraid al-Hakim might be made Ayatollah before him which would have put him at serious disatvantage in the politican arena.
Another reason which again you don't know about is that this is a sort of Shi'a tradition, you see it's happened many times in history, the Ayatollah leaves and goes in exile for a long time and than returns to come to power, this is what Khomeini did aswell, he went to Iraq, than France than came back and the Shah was kicked out, he became Supreme Leader. Sadr is waiting for the Americans to leave, his support to grow and his clerical titles to be enhanced so when he comes back...

*Many religious titles are a sham when you see these men preach hatred and war. As a religious figure if anything he should be preaching tolerence and peace and we both know that clown does neither of the two. His army was routed and therefore he fled to Iran.

The Sadr Movement was started by his father Mohammad Sadiq al-Sadr, after he was murdered by Saddam, his son Muqtada took over, what he is doing now is following his fathers' footsteps.

Also it's not up to you to decide who becomes Ayatollah. Sadr is doing his religious studies and whent he senior Ayatollah's of Iran decide he's good enough, he will be given the title.

*Would love to here your theory on how the "Americans" rigged the vote. Soldiers have no vote in that country only in ours. And there is no American populace in Iraq outside of soldiers and contractors.

Well, ex-Prime Minister Jaafari expressed concern already before the elections that American troops might try to rig the ballot boxes. Also the decission by al-Maliki to print much more ballots than there are people eligable to vote raised some suspicions.

*Unlike Iran, they are subject to recount. Irans leaders never gave the people the chance. I would bet anything that if in fact there ever was a fair and open election in Iran, dinnerjacket would have been gone long ago.
And we all know that as fact.

They got screwed. And anybody with better then a second grade education can see that on its very value.[/B]

There was a recount in Iran, Mousavi, the mass-murderer (he ordered the execution of 14,000 prisoners when he was PM) who claims suddenly to have become Gandhi lost fair and square. Than his revolution failed because the people didn't want to go to the streets for his Mujahedin e-Kalq/Shah loving ***.

The way they make teh 2008 fighting look now is much different from how it was back then. At the time Muqtada had won, Iraqi security forces sent for the crackdown were deserting and switching sides en masse, Mahdi Army was taking control of the whole city and than Maliki gave in to his demand (release of prisoners), which was the reason why the fighting started in the first place, after the Mahdi Army than withdrew Maliki suddenly turned it to make it look like a victory.

.

it appears you are saying that Sadr did not actually suffer a defeat in Basra and that he in effect ...won?

it appears you are saying that Sadr did not actually suffer a defeat in Basra and that he in effect ...won?

Initially he won atleast the fighting on the ground since militarily the Mahdi Army only made gains during the fighting and initially it was a big embaressment for Maliki how his forces preformed (or actually didn't preform since they were all deserting and defecting) and he achieved what was at that time his objective in starting the fighting but the Iranian brokered cease-fire between Sadr and Hakim was hailed as victory of Maliki over all militia (which it wasn't) while some got excited about Sadr's supposed demise, now it shows he's still there.

The eventual disbanding of the Mahdi Army (which was then succeeded by the Promised Day Brigades) was more due to the fact that the secterian war had ended and the Americans were leaving so the Iranians didn't want at all to see a Shi'a Vs. Shi'a civil war between Sadr and al-Hakim's factions. Instead they declared a cease-fire, the Sadrists re-joined the government and the militia-men were signed up for the security forces and hand over their enclaves in the cities putting all control in the hands of a united Shi'a government with a united Shi'a army.

The Promised Day Brigades were than created to along with the Leage of the Righteous (led by Qais al-Khazali) and Hezbollah Brigades (the PDB is headed by Sadr and is the official successor organisation of the Mahdi Army, the other two are breakaway factions which continue to operate) continue as small groups to carry out some attacks on the Americans (all three groups denounced attacks on civilians and other Iraqis) cause the Iranians still didn't want to see a complete quiet American withdraw.

so, sadr voluntarily gave up the influence and safety an armed militia brings and retired to iran for study?

He didn't give up his influence he just re-united with the government. By 2008 the Sunni insurgency was mostly dead, they were routed from most of their last strongholds (in Diyala, Salahudin, Kerkuk and Southern Ninawa) soon after the Battle of Basra and by early 2008 the secterian conflict (where in the Mahdi Army played a key role), which claimed the lives of 50K to half a milion Iraqis, had come to an end, the Sunnis had lost, the Shi'a had won. The country had changed by then and the Americans were goin to leave, the Mahdi Army had lost most of it's purpose and both Iran and Sadr agreed it wouldn't be a good idea to have Mahdi controlled states in a state.

The original Iranian plan was to have one of their allies (al-Hakim) in the government and collaborating with the Americans, that way their militia (which was created in Iran) were used to form the core of the security forces and they were given prominent positions in the government and to have their other ally (al-Sadr) fight the Americans, which were not supposed to have it to easy (although it was in Iran's interests, America squash the Sunni insurgency), but by end 2007 Hakim and Sadr wer eon the verge of launching a Shi'a on Shi'a civil war, the peak was when during a pilgrimage in the holy city of Karbala militiamen of these two clashed and it ended in a bloodbath.

So Iran brought these two men (and Maliki, who led a pro-Iranian party and especially at that time was a strong Iranian ally and had spent his exile in Iran) together to make peace. Sadr gave up his state-like enclaves inside cities and in retutn Sadrist politicians were brought into the government while his militiamen (many of which were part-time militia and had jobs as police) were merged into the security forces along with the rest of Maliki and al-Hakim's militias. The next year Sadr and Hakim joined an election coalition together (the NIA) which showed how much they had reconciled.

Did Sadr loose his safety and go to Iran? He was already in Iran. Did he loose his influence? Not really, his forces now have influence on the inside of security forces and the people by voting, ensured his party became the biggest party in Iraq and is to play a prominent role in the next government. He himself will have a lot more influence with his men in the government and with an Ayatollah status, than as a rouge low-level cleric who leads a militia.

Al-Hakim wants the Velayet e-Faqih in Iraq, al-Sadr doesn't. But as it is, Ayatollahs wield significant power over all religious Shi'a politicians in Iraq so what about an Ayatollah with his own party, which just happens to be Iraq's biggest party?

*Politics and religion dont mix. There have been so many examples of this over time its blinding. Politics should never be guided by someones interpitation of a religion. Politics needs to deal with real people, everyday situations and facts. Not religious theory. Yes, it is good to be god fearing but no, using your own interpitation to preach hate and intolerance is wrong and Sadr has done this even before he fled to Iran and will do it when he returns as well.

Look at the morons in Iran calling for death and destrucion. Do you really believe Iraq should be ruled by someone simuliar? Or someone the people actually elect and will do something for them by offering a brighter future for their children, not be stuck in failed ways of the past and bring misery.

There are several reasons, the first and most obvious is that the Americans want to arrest him, the second is to study to become Ayatollah, many Iranian clerics go to Najaf in Iraq to study for Ayatollah (Khomeini and Khamenei have both studied there, Sistani, an Iranian, still lives there and is the most powerfull figure in Iraq), many Iraqi clerics go for religious studies in Qom, Iran. These two places are the main places for Shi'a clerics to get educated, Sadr has been to Najaf already, it was becoming time for him to come to Qom and not only a possible American arrest prompted him to do this, also Sadr was afraid al-Hakim might be made Ayatollah before him which would have put him at serious disatvantage in the politican arena.
Another reason which again you don't know about is that this is a sort of Shi'a tradition, you see it's happened many times in history, the Ayatollah leaves and goes in exile for a long time and than returns to come to power, this is what Khomeini did aswell, he went to Iraq, than France than came back and the Shah was kicked out, he became Supreme Leader. Sadr is waiting for the Americans to leave, his support to grow and his clerical titles to be enhanced so when he comes back...

Lets see how educated you really are about Sadr. Do you know why the US was going to arrest him. If so then list the reasons.

*Yep and look at his country now, under sanctions and future sanctions coming as well as a threat of war because they call for distruction of another nation every other day and diregard their obligations under the NPT as well and funding terror. You have defections of millitary and scientists because they know what Iran is doing is going to bring them conflict. The elections in that country are a sham and as mentioned before anyone with better then a second grade education can see this for themselves.

*I wouldn't be so proud of that being a "religious" figure. Particularly the leader of a country.

Well, ex-Prime Minister Jaafari expressed concern already before the elections that American troops might try to rig the ballot boxes. Also the decission by al-Maliki to print much more ballots than there are people eligable to vote raised some suspicions.

*Absolute BULLSHIT! Show this board right now any proof that you or anyone else has in rigging elections in any country by US troops. You cant!, Why? Because it has never happened and the statement alone is worthless bullshit and a cop out.

U.S. Troops stuffing ballot boxes?

Any other excuses to use beside he sucked as a politician and the people voted him out because they wanted him out?

Troops are stationed outside the polling places (and more then likely they are Iraqi soldiers at this point). And they are monitiored by outside polling observers.

There was a recount in Iran, Mousavi, the mass-murderer (he ordered the execution of 14,000 prisoners when he was PM) who claims suddenly to have become Gandhi lost fair and square. Than his revolution failed because the people didn't want to go to the streets for his Mujahedin e-Kalq/Shah loving ***.

There wasnt shit and everyone knows that. The assahola made that blatently obvious, that is unless Iran can manually crunch numbers faster the any human being on this planet. 4 hours to hand victory to dinnerjacket and it took Iraq days to finalize theirs not including recounts. It takes the US longer then 4 hours as well and Iran is nowhere near as advanced.

Face it the people were screwed by the "religious" leader. If that what you want to call him.

And if it wasnt the case, they why such protests, people disappearing and being murdered in the streets. Communications shut down, Journalists banned from coverage etc etc etc. The list is long. However they were not able to contain all of it no matter what extremes they went to.

Assahola wont be able to silence them forever! The odds are in the peoples favor.)

Please, go insult someone else with such nonsense. Im sure that Sadr's followers will listen and follow like the good little stooges they are.

*Politics and religion dont mix. There have been so many examples of this over time its blinding. Politics should never be guided by someones interpitation of a religion. Politics needs to deal with real people, everyday situations and facts. Not religious theory. Yes, it is good to be god fearing but no, using your own interpitation to preach hate and intolerance is wrong and Sadr has done this even before he fled to Iran and will do it when he returns as well.

That's your opinion, but in a democratic country, people have the right to elect a religious government and also not like religion plays no role in American politics.

Look at the morons in Iran calling for death and destrucion. Do you really believe Iraq should be ruled by someone simuliar? Or someone the people actually elect and will do something for them by offering a brighter future for their children, not be stuck in failed ways of the past and bring misery.

The Islamic Regime is the best government Iran has had since the death of Mohammad Khan Qajar Shah and definetly better than that of any of it's neighbours.

Lets see how educated you really are about Sadr. Do you know why the US was going to arrest him. If so then list the reasons.

The reason is pretty obvious, isn't it?

*Yep and look at his country now, under sanctions and future sanctions coming as well as a threat of war because they call for distruction of another nation every other day and diregard their obligations under the NPT as well and funding terror. You have defections of millitary and scientists because they know what Iran is doing is going to bring them conflict. The elections in that country are a sham and as mentioned before anyone with better then a second grade education can see this for themselves.

We're prospering, developing and expanding power for the first time in 200 years and are the only country in the region to really start developing self-sufficiency and independence, while the rest are weak American satelite states. Ofcourse the regional opressors will do whatever they can to oppose us including bending rules at a worthless puppet organisation (UN) stationed in the Middle of their country to put sanctions on us, will it stop Iran from developing independently, no? Will it stop Iran from opposing occupation and opressiont in the region, no? And there is nothing terrorist about fighting a legitimate struggle for the liberation of your people.

*I wouldn't be so proud of that being a "religious" figure. Particularly the leader of a country.

For you it has no importance but for the Iraqi people it does.

*Absolute BULLSHIT! Show this board right now any proof that you or anyone else has in rigging elections in any country by US troops. You cant!, Why? Because it has never happened and the statement alone is worthless bullshit and a cop out.

U.S. Troops stuffing ballot boxes?

Any other excuses to use beside he sucked as a politician and the people voted him out because they wanted him out?

Troops are stationed outside the polling places (and more then likely they are Iraqi soldiers at this point). And they are monitiored by outside polling observers.

I'm not the one making these complaints, but the fraud complaints have been filed now and we'll see what the high court will say.

here wasnt shit and everyone knows that. The assahola made that blatently obvious, that is unless Iran can manually crunch numbers faster the any human being on this planet. 4 hours to hand victory to dinnerjacket and it took Iraq days to finalize theirs not including recounts. It takes the US longer then 4 hours as well and Iran is nowhere near as advanced.

Face it the people were screwed by the "religious" leader. If that what you want to call him.

They'd been counting the votes all day as they were coming in + 4 hours long after the polls had closed.

And if the votes hadn't been counted, how did Mousavi get those "real election figures" he published, which gave him 19 milion votes and Ahmadinejad 5 milion? Or are you implying that although the Iranian election commission didn't count any votes, Mousavis men did?

And if it wasnt the case, they why such protests, people disappearing and being murdered in the streets. Communications shut down, Journalists banned from coverage etc etc etc. The list is long. However they were not able to contain all of it no matter what extremes they went to.

What, 100 000 people on the first day, in a city of 14 000 000, in a country of 74 000 000? For the next weeks crowds of ~10 000 and from August to Ashura crowds of less than ~1 000 with anti-Mousavi protests getting 2 000 000? It's not even slightly impressive. Outside Tehran (where 90% of the population lives), there were no protests of more than 1 000, only occasional student protests of 50-300 people.

Assahola wont be able to silence them forever! The odds are in the peoples favor.)

Silence who? A small westernised minority in Northern Tehran? Mousavi's approval rate dropped under 10% after what his thugs did on the Ashura day, something we won't forgive this Monafeq for.

Please, go insult someone else with such nonsense. Im sure that Sadr's followers will listen and follow like the good little stooges they are.

And based on the elections which you said were fair, Sadr has more supporters than any other Iraqi.

That's your opinion, but in a democratic country, people have the right to elect a religious government and also not like religion plays no role in American politics.

Yep, they do have that right. They also have the right not to have a proxy governement spawned in Iran who insist on strict Islamic Law. The country dont belong to them, it belongs to her people.

*Show us an example and please dont insult us by stating Iran when nothing could be further from the truth. (With exception to a few of your posts on prior threads) that is )

The US seperates church and state. Read and understand how one cannot influence the other. You dont see people getting beaten for not wearing what the religious rulers deem exceptable. Or shops closed down because the sell music that the extremsist deem unaccecptable. Thats not Democracy, thats dictatorship!

The Islamic Regime is the best government Iran has had since the death of Mohammad Khan Qajar Shah and definetly better than that of any of it's neighbours.

*How did it come to rule? It was not by the peoples vote I assure you. So rule Democracy out. Rule a coup in.

We're prospering, developing and expanding power for the first time in 200 years and are the only country in the region to really start developing self-sufficiency and independence, while the rest are weak American satelite states. Ofcourse the regional opressors will do whatever they can to oppose us including bending rules at a worthless puppet organisation (UN) stationed in the Middle of their country to put sanctions on us, will it stop Iran from developing independently, no? Will it stop Iran from opposing occupation and opressiont in the region, no? And there is nothing terrorist about fighting a legitimate struggle for the liberation of your people.

Ah, there was one of the ones I was looking for.

Heres the funny thing they arent your people. And many could say that Iran was a Russian puppet state via the Treaty of Turkmenchay 1828.

As stated:

By Article 4 of the treaty, Persia renounces claims over the Erivan khanate (most of present-day central Armenia), the Nakhchivan khanate (most of the present-day Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan), the Talysh khanate, the Ordubad and Mughan regions (now also part of Azerbaijan), in addition to all lands annexed by Russia in the Gulistan Treaty.

By Article 8 of the treaty, Iranian ships lose full rights to navigate all of the Caspian Sea and her coasts, henceforth given to Russia.
Iran recognizes Capitulation rights for Russians in Iran.

By Article 10, Russia gains the right to send consulate envoys to anywhere in Iran it wishes.

By Article 13, Exchange of POWs.

By Article 10, Iran is forced to sign economic treaties with Russia as Russia specifies.

By Article 7 of the treaty, Russia promises to support Abbas Mirza as the heir to the throne of Persia after Fath Ali Shah dies. (This proved impossible when Abbas Mirza predeceased Fath Ali Shah.)
Iran officially apologizes for breaking its promises made in the Gulistan Treaty.

By Article 15, Fath Ali Shah promises not to charge or persecute any inhabitant or official in the region of Azerbaijan for any deed carried out during the war or during the temporary control of the region by Russian troops. In addition, all inhabitants of the aforementioned district are given right to move from Persian districts to Russian districts if they wish to do so within one year.

The treaty also stipulated the resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus, which also included an outright liberation of Armenian captives who were brought and had lived in Iran since 1804 or as far back as 1795. In addition, the resettlement permitted to compensate the loss of 20,000 Armenians who moved to Georgia between 1795 to 1827.[4]

*Now who is the puppet before you go insulting others?)

For you it has no importance but for the Iraqi people it does.

*Really? Saddam wasnt a religiously recognized leader although he had his religious roots. It sound more like to Iran it does.

I'm not the one making these complaints, but the fraud complaints have been filed now and we'll see what the high court will say.

*The very same this I said above. It cannot and has not happened. Find a better excuse because all of the facts point to other then US Troop involvement. The chances of it happening are almost "impossible".

It's what you call neutral...

*It what the civilized nations of the World call neutral. Not me.

What, 100 000 people on the first day, in a city of 14 000 000, in a country of 74 000 000? For the next weeks crowds of ~10 000 and from August to Ashura crowds of less than ~1 000 with anti-Mousavi protests getting 2 000 000? It's not even slightly impressive. Outside Tehran (where 90% of the population lives), there were no protests of more than 1 000, only occasional student protests of 50-300 people.

Whats impressive is that they stood up to the Basij, and the supposed "leader" that screwed them out of fair and transparent elections. Some died for it, some were raped in jail, many suffered. It proved that Irans leadership cannot be trusted on a local level not an International level. With no media to report (since the were quarentined) and communications hobbled how would you know this? Answer?: You wouldnt your only assuming.

And if the votes hadn't been counted, how did Mousavi get those "real election figures" he published, which gave him 19 milion votes and Ahmadinejad 5 milion? Or are you implying that although the Iranian election commission didn't count any votes, Mousavis men did?

*How is it that Assahola announced it four hours later. He must have seen it in a dream right? The fact is lied, dead faced to the people he wishes to rule with his crazy laws and militia aka the Basij. Even men above him in the cabinet claimed fraud! Guess they lied too correct?.

Silence who? A small westernised minority in Northern Tehran? Mousavi's approval rate dropped under 10% after what his thugs did on the Ashura day, something we won't forgive this Monafeq for.

Hmm Westernized huh? How can a Westernized people exist in Iran? According to dinnerjacket gays dont even exist in Iran so how can Westernern influence?:P

And based on the elections which you said were fair, Sadr has more supporters than any other Iraqi.

We have yet to see a victor. Iraq dont need another Cleric to lead it, you have enough of those extremeist idiots next door in Iran.

*Now tell me, why was Sadr going to be arrested? So I can come back here and club you good once and for all.)

Yep, they do have that right. They also have the right not to have a proxy governement spawned in Iran who insist on strict Islamic Law. The country dont belong to them, it belongs to her people.

*Show us an example and please dont insult us by stating Iran when nothing could be further from the truth. (With exception to a few of your posts on prior threads) that is )

The US seperates church and state. Read and understand how one cannot influence the other. You dont see people getting beaten for not wearing what the religious rulers deem exceptable. Or shops closed down because the sell music that the extremsist deem unaccecptable. Thats not Democracy, thats dictatorship!

So far only Islamic governments have been elected into office in Iraq, that's what the people want.

*How did it come to rule? It was not by the peoples vote I assure you. So rule Democracy out. Rule a coup in.

Not by a coup, by a public uprising, a revolution put them in power, they were not a bunch of generals who deposed a President.

He was leading an armed insurgency against the Americans, what more reason could they have to want to arrest him?

We're prospering, developing and expanding power for the first time in 200 years and are the only country in the region to really start developing self-sufficiency and independence, while the rest are weak American satelite states. Ofcourse the regional opressors will do whatever they can to oppose us including bending rules at a worthless puppet organisation (UN) stationed in the Middle of their country to put sanctions on us, will it stop Iran from developing independently, no? Will it stop Iran from opposing occupation and opressiont in the region, no? And there is nothing terrorist about fighting a legitimate struggle for the liberation of your people.

Ah, there was one of the ones I was looking for.

Heres the funny thing they arent your people. And many could say that Iran was a Russian puppet state via the Treaty of Turkmenchay 1828.

As stated:

By Article 4 of the treaty, Persia renounces claims over the Erivan khanate (most of present-day central Armenia), the Nakhchivan khanate (most of the present-day Nakhchivan Autonomous Republic of Azerbaijan), the Talysh khanate, the Ordubad and Mughan regions (now also part of Azerbaijan), in addition to all lands annexed by Russia in the Gulistan Treaty.

By Article 8 of the treaty, Iranian ships lose full rights to navigate all of the Caspian Sea and her coasts, henceforth given to Russia.
Iran recognizes Capitulation rights for Russians in Iran.

By Article 10, Russia gains the right to send consulate envoys to anywhere in Iran it wishes.

By Article 13, Exchange of POWs.

By Article 10, Iran is forced to sign economic treaties with Russia as Russia specifies.

By Article 7 of the treaty, Russia promises to support Abbas Mirza as the heir to the throne of Persia after Fath Ali Shah dies. (This proved impossible when Abbas Mirza predeceased Fath Ali Shah.)
Iran officially apologizes for breaking its promises made in the Gulistan Treaty.

By Article 15, Fath Ali Shah promises not to charge or persecute any inhabitant or official in the region of Azerbaijan for any deed carried out during the war or during the temporary control of the region by Russian troops. In addition, all inhabitants of the aforementioned district are given right to move from Persian districts to Russian districts if they wish to do so within one year.

The treaty also stipulated the resettlement of Armenians from Persia to the Caucasus, which also included an outright liberation of Armenian captives who were brought and had lived in Iran since 1804 or as far back as 1795. In addition, the resettlement permitted to compensate the loss of 20,000 Armenians who moved to Georgia between 1795 to 1827.[4]

*Now who is the puppet before you go insulting others?)

All you've done ws show how garbage the past rulers were, something all Iranians know (and even the Shahis hate the Qajars), but thankfully, this all changed after the revolution.

*Really? Saddam wasnt a religiously recognized leader although he had his religious roots. It sound more like to Iran it does.

And Saddam was hated by 90% of the population, it's not a very good example.

*The very same this I said above. It cannot and has not happened. Find a better excuse because all of the facts point to other then US Troop involvement. The chances of it happening are almost "impossible".

They have the power to rigg the elections, but if they did so is another matter.

*It what the civilized nations of the World call neutral. Not me.

The UN is not neutral, it's a worthless organisation created to portray America's stand as that of the so-called "World community."

Whats impressive is that they stood up to the Basij, and the supposed "leader" that screwed them out of fair and transparent elections. Some died for it, some were raped in jail, many suffered. It proved that Irans leadership cannot be trusted on a local level not an International level. With no media to report (since the were quarentined) and communications hobbled how would you know this? Answer?: You wouldnt your only assuming.

They didn't stand up to anybody, they just attacked innocent people and burned shops and houses, vandalising both mosques and private property. They got their ***es kicked wherever they went by real Iranians and than went on to scream "Basij!", those Basijis who were involved in restoring order wore uniforms and anti-riot gear, the others were just people which weren't accepting this. Also these rioters attacked police stations and policemen but on their 30 second youtube videos they don't show that, they only show when they get hit themselfes by police who are defending themselfes and others.

*How is it that Assahola announced it four hours later. He must have seen it in a dream right? The fact is lied, dead faced to the people he wishes to rule with his crazy laws and militia aka the Basij.

They'd been counting all day, that's why they didn't need to count the votes the next day, but had finished counting 4 hours after the polls were closed.

Even men above him in the cabinet claimed fraud! Guess they lied too correct?.

Only reformists, but they are liars.

Hmm Westernized huh? How can a Westernized people exist in Iran?

How can Wahabi terrorists exist in the United States?

According to dinnerjacket gays dont even exist in Iran so how can Westernern influence?:P

Another misquotation by Zionists, which morons who can't speak Farsi and don't bother to look into it, believed.

We have yet to see a victor. Iraq dont need another Cleric to lead it, you have enough of those extremeist idiots next door in Iran.

What we have seen is who won the most seats. Sadr won't be the next Prime Minister, if that's what you mean with victor, but there will be no PM without his approval.

Kermanshahi Reply

"Not a complete dictatorship but we can all agree Maliki has become increasingly authoritarian and I don't know if you've followed the news but he's dropped hints of a military coup if he isn't declared winner. Maliki's bloc lost, but he now claims Allawi commited fraud (the first time a government ever claims the opposition commited fraud against them) and is demanding a recount, the IHEC refused and then he released a statement that "as commander in chief" he cannot allow "fraudulent results" to be approved by the commision. He's also been pulling strings to try get 4 members of Allawi's bloc banned which would make his the biggest."

This is an immature democracy that could easily fall into any number of outcomes over time. That's certain. It's NOT, however, remotely close to a dictatorship right now nor has it been. Whether that changes over the next few years is a separate matter but the claim you'd earlier made is just plain wrong.

"This aggression will not stand, man!" Jeff Lebowski"The only true currency in this bankrupt world is what you share with someone else when you're uncool." Lester Bangs

So far only Islamic governments have been elected into office in Iraq, that's what the people want.

*First and foremost there is nothing wrong with a person of Islamic decent being voted into office. The key word is voted. The people dont want strict extremeism law as in such examples as the Taliban and dinnerjackets regime. What they want is peace and a future. Sadr would/could never give him that. Not now and certainly not in the future. He is an extremeist no doubt.

If he were to come to power then he would expect to keep his Army in place. Not going to happen, Sadr's Army has not only resisted Coalition forces but also contributed greatly to the body count of forces and civilians. They will not permit a militia between the govenment and the government forces. This is Irans tell tale. Look at the Basij, Look into Lebannon, Look into Gaza. All have Irans tell tale sign of interference.

While we are on this note of the Basij, you claim they were there protecting. Several well produced articles and eye witnesses (not 30 second youtubes) are available and yes the Basij was behind the crackdown. In other words except the sham election or you disappear or worse. In fact the one Basij member even has a name that killed that girl in the street for no reason at all.

Here is his picture and eyewitness account. He was Basij. No doubt.

Eyewitness Dr Arash Hejazi confirms that the man in this photo is the killer of Neda Agha Soltan